Intel VID vs what the box says...

[Lsdmeasap]

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Ahh ok, I thought maybe it was but saw that post today so I wasn't sure

[Merman]

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

What Intel DTS Means for Enthusiasts

previously reported onIDFhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF presentation was quite disappointing, and once again the enthusiast community has been left scratching its head in the dark. While Intel did disclose the maximum Tjunction values for all of its 45nm desktop ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2 Duos and Core 2 Quads as well as a few other small details, it stopped short of revealing any especially useful information.



Of course, the primary function of the DTS is not for the end user to monitor temperatures, but to protect the processor from damage due to overheating. This makes it even more strange that Intel has released the Tjunction Max values for its 45nm processors.

What Intel DTS Means for Enthusiasts - Tom's Hardware

[VorLonUK]

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

RealTime VID is not monitored like you are thinking. The VID is HARD Set, unless like you highlighted you have EIST or C1E enabled.

VID is really nothing you need to worry this much about, you cannot adjust it or use it for anything useful.

So I don't have to copy and paste from the Intel data sheets:-

[H]ard|Forum - View Single Post - Q6600 VID fluctuates in Core Temp?

The processor provides the ability to operate while transitioning to an adjacent VID and its associated processor core voltage (VCC). This will represent a DC shift in the load line. It should be noted that a low-to-high or high-to-low voltage state change may result in as many VID transitions as necessary to reach the target core voltage.
Transitions above the specified VID are not permitted. Table 5 includes VID step sizes and DC shift ranges. Minimum and maximum voltages must be maintained as shown in Table 6 and Figure 1 as measured across the VCC_SENSE and VSS_SENSE lands.
The VRM or VRD used must be capable of regulating its output to the value defined by the new VID. DC specifications for dynamic VID transitions are included in Table 5 and Table 6. Refer to the Voltage Regulator-Down (VRD) 11.0 Processor Power Delivery Design Guidelines For Desktop LGA775 Socket for further details.

[Lsdmeasap]

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

So, then this would mean that it never goes up above VID unless the user changes something, right? >>>

Transitions above the specified VID are not permitted

Really, all in all, still no biggie to overclockers I would think. Just watch your temps and you will be buying a new CPU anyway far before your CPU is dead, unless you do crazy things to it

*EDIT*
And ya know, I think that guy maybe wrote something wrong or some translations are incorrect... Or something

Because.....

At 1.6 and 4.5Ghz my VID remains the same at idle and under load in Realtemp, his program. So Something is worded wrong, or understood wrong amongst someone somewhere.

If you believe that, and I am crazy... You show me your VID changed at some freq and then the normal VID

[VorLonUK]

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

So, then this would mean that it never goes up above VID unless the user changes something, right? >>>

Yep :-)

Really, all in all, still no biggie to overclockers I would think. Just watch your temps and you will be buying a new CPU anyway far before your CPU is dead, unless you do crazy things to it

I agree with you LsdMe, but it might be interesting for overclockers to know that if the tested max and set VID of their CPU is pretty low in the VID range of their model of CPU, that they may not need to go mad on incrementing the voltage when they overclock.

I think on some forums, Member A might say you need to have 1.3volts for 20% overclock on your E8500 and then that sort of gets set in stone and often is the "starting" point people increment from. Yet Member B might have a "better" chip with a lower Intel Set VID that will do the same overclock at a lower voltage.

I think the same happens a LOT with memory. People read the main timings and the max voltage on the memory label and set the bios to those levels from the outset, without even trying the memory at a lower voltage.

I agree with you too, that those who overclock a lot probably don't keep their components long, so it doesn't really matter if they destroy them, or they don't last for that long.
I think there is the other category too though, that wants to experiment overclocking, but really can't afford to damage anything.

Edit:-

*EDIT*
And ya know, I think that guy maybe wrote something wrong or some translations are incorrect... Or something

Because.....

At 1.6 and 4.5Ghz my VID remains the same at idle and under load in Realtemp, his program. So Something is worded wrong, or understood wrong amongst someone somewhere.

If you believe that, and I am crazy... You show me your VID changed at some freq and then the normal VID

This is what i was saying further up the thread Lsdme, my VID appears to stay on the retail box max voltage in RealTemp. Reading through the notes though, some people were wondering why their VID had changed between versions of RealTEMP! I think this was on the 45nm chips too. So i'm not 100% convinced what I'm seeing is the "Real Time" VID and think the program probably needs some polishing.

But elsewhere on the net I have read from an Intel source that Intel does not publish this info and doesn't encourage "rogue" programs that display such data.
We all know how Intel are over temperature monitoring and in depth documentattion isn't readily available for those who want to write specific utility/diagnostic programs hence the RealTemp approach.

I'll still be researching it though as I'm just have an interest.

[Lsdmeasap]

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Ya, I do see what you mean with all your thoughts above the edit. I do often mention a "starting Range" like you say for CPU's, but always tell the user to Lower later with testing.

And I VERY often explain, more then I would like to I think, That ram sticker voltage specs are the MAX rated under the warranty and are not what is needed for all boards to run at the rated speeds and timings. Only that it is the max the manufacturer allows under warranty and what they have tested to be stable in all boards they have pre-tested the ram with

Anyone who want to experiment but cannot afford to kill something should for sure do TONS of reading first. Which Many, especially those types, do. As for the rest of us overclockers we know a "Range" that will generally be too much for long periods and even if we venture there for short periods we are not worried as we know we plan to by the New Qxxxx or the i7 CPU in 6 months to a year anyway. New CPU's come into out lives like clockwork thanks to Intel.

A new CPU range is released almost every 6 months now, and CPU's will last MANY years at high voltages anyway. Of course not at crazy ones but for sure at mex spec or a little above they will outlive the User's desire to have that chip

__________________________________________________ _____

Ahh, then we are on the same page!

Ya, RealTemp's VID changed many times for everyone throughout the versions because of his thoughts on Tjmax values and how he had the program setting/guessing the VID's (mainly 45nm). It is all final and corrected now. CoreTemp was doing the same until now.

Now why your's matches the box and others same CPU's may not is just because your Chips batch that day when being made was programmed/tested to be a the top of that processors VID range to be classified as such.

It was going thru the polishing, is why people noticed those things. It is all final and correct now that Intel has released the above mentioned PDF (Dead Link now, Thanks Intel) >>>

http://intel.wingateweb.com/US08/published/sessions/TMTS001/SF08_TMTS001_100r.pdf

*Edit*
Uploaded PDF >>>
TjMax-4-All.rar

If you go thru the XS link I posted you can get all the versions and beta's and you can see the progression in the programming and settings. Not saying you need to or should, I just mean if you DID want to see your VID at a different amount you can easily grab some of the older versions and compare. May take you a while to find which will show it, but they are there. I used to have about 20 of the beta's/versions in a folder but tossed them all a while back as they were no longer being used. But they are still there if anyone wanted to get a older one.

If you, or any of those users noticed all apps, Everest, CoreTemp, and Realtemp varied there for a while with TJmax Defaults and VID Defaults for certain chips. But they all are now in agreement. But yes, still several of them are Adjustable for TjMax anyway, VID should remain constant thru all apps you use provided they are up to date.

All are the same VID now in all Apps I use including SIV >>>>

<a href="http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snap1at0.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6753/snap1at0.th.jpg" border="0"></a>

Granted, some apps are still behind and always will be in sensors data when it comes to actual voltages and TjMax, but VID is always a constant

[Merman]

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Granted, some apps are still behind and always will be in sensors data when it comes to actual voltages and TjMax, but VID is always a constant

What bios are you using with which board and when was the last time you updated???

As posted before this has not been my experience. The VID in the bios, which is being talked about here, has changed on my system and been reflected in most of the Monitoring programs.

[Lsdmeasap]

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

I am using the latest BIOS with a P45-DS4P board, why do you ask? Mine is always the exact same as shown above, at 1.x volts and 4.5 volts

Brand new board. Maybe you didn't read all of our discussion. I know you are the VID & vdroop police But our main discussion about it here was how RealTemp thru all the beta's and versions will sometimes show different amounts for the actual Set Programmed per chip VID defaults

Meaning When I have X version and XX version on my desktop and open them both, 2 different VID's were shown. Just a programming pickup difference, not actual correct VID value

[Merman]

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

I am using the latest BIOS with a P45-DS4P board, why do you ask? Mine is always the exact same as shown above, at 1.x volts and 4.5 volts

Well I was talking about the P35 as Gigabyte did change the Normal CPU Vcore in the 7 to 8 bios on my board and would not be surprised if they did on your board too.

Brand new board. Maybe you didn't read all of our discussion. I know you are the VID & vdroop police But our main discussion about it here was how RealTemp thru all the beta's and versions will sometimes show different amounts for the actual Set Programmed per chip VID defaults

I read the whole thread and made my comments where appropriate.

There is a maximum set VID for a CPU and I have never seen it in a board bios, RealTemp or any other monitoring program.

As for being the police you can stick that comment even with the smilie. Repeating incorrect infomation is believed when repeated enough. If that is what you want on your forum I wll be pleased to cooperate.

[Lsdmeasap]

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Normal CPU Vcore default is Set by the CPU installed to the VID in the chip, not by the board itself. This is part of the reason you should always load optimized defaults when you first start a new board, and or change CPU's >>>

VID is used by a motherboard to determine what core voltage to supply the CPU. Motherboards with overvoltage capabilities use VID as the base voltage.

ALCPU Forums :: View topic - Voltage reading is still not correct.

As for your second comment, I really was joking around with you. Just meant you are the one who comments the most on it is all.

The VID set is per CPU series and per CPU within each series, and You will have to read the 90 or so pages I guess at XS before you understand what I meant in your quote. But basically the point that we were discussing was that throughout all the Beta Versions of Realtemp he had some programming code wrong and it picked up VID's incorrectly, not the Maximum VID just the usual one showed by MANY apps.


And many apps, and BIOS's will get the Correct MAX VID, what made you think they could not? Here is a example with 2 apps reporting correct Max (and Min in one) VID's ---- SIV & CPU-z >>>

<a href="http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snap2br1.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8128/snap2br1.th.png" border="0"></a>

I will take a few minutes and find some older versions of Coretemp (Which did the same and will take FAR less looking thru pages) and show you what I meant

Damn Shzt, well ya know how that hunt went! HAHA Really man, I did meant nothing by that comment above, please do not be offended!

I did get this for you though, this is what we really meant (Acknowledged by the Dev of CoreTemp, but RealTemp had same issue As well) >>>
ALCPU Forums :: View topic - VID changed in CT 0.99

More of the same, users noticing what we were meaning
ALCPU Forums :: View topic - CoreTemp 0.99 reporting wrong VID for 45nm?
ALCPU Forums :: View topic - CPU detection issue

And for Realtemp you can start on page 32 for users starting to compare incorrect VID by different versions, and coretemp vs realtemp. What is was with RealTemp is that some were picking up Max VID and Some others Min VID, and still Some Erroneous VID's in between. And between different Versions he had by default The Max and Min showing on the main page at different times, and he also had changed the name from VID to MaxVID and just VID for Min, and several ways in between with the various Betas. So all in all, that is all we meant when talking about RealTemp and how it showed defferent values. And of course the same applies, yet even more thru all the versions for users who have Speedstep enabled as it would change often between min and max and not show or show those associated names with the values >>>
Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors - XtremeSystems Forums

Example of this in CoreTemp and RealTemp (With RealTemps Original naming scheme which shows how the VID could be changed and confuse a user) >>>



XtremeSystems Forums - View Single Post - Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors


Comment made partially thru development, also showing how it could have changed or been seen in RealTemp and confused some users.

If RealTemp is reporting Minimum VID then if you start up Prime or whatever it should jump and report the Maximum VID. The T7200 mobile chip I tried showed 4 different VID values depending on load when transitioning between Minimum and Maximum VID.

XtremeSystems Forums - View Single Post - Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

Basically, the naming scheme of VID in RealTemp and Or Speedstep and VID being used were factors that led us and others to see different VID per Program versions.

All corrected now in both Programs.


Like I said above, I did not mean that offensively at all, Only meant that you would be for sure dropping a word in about it all.

[VorLonUK]

Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

Thanks Lsdme for posting all that info - I know it takes time.

From what I can gather, quite a few of the programs out there for reporting any type of VID status, ie range or actual, have had problems resulting in misreporting, cue some of your screenshots

So far though, it seems clear that Intel have a VID range for a particular CPU product line/model, which they print as part of the online specification.

Then there is the Voltage stamped on the Intel Retail Box, which has the suffix "max".
I assume this is the maximum "programmed" VID, ie the most the CPU will require to operate at its stock specification.

Now I assumed that as the Box VID was the maximum required, why did CPUz show a lesser figure in what *seemed* Normal operation. Then I thought well if the VID on the box is the maximum required for the CPU to do its normal specified job, then maybe there is a mechanism for it to operate at a lesser voltage, still within the confines of the VID code and bios/board/system translation.

However, I think that the fact I still have C1E and EIST enabled might be skewing my thinking.
I need to disable those and then check to see if CPUz raises upto and indicates that maximum VID on the box, for there to be a clear reference for the user.